Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ajtj99 who wrote (69431)	9/24/2007 4:33:09 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

I agree with him. Organics don't seem suited to fighting global hunger. If it's a choice between starving or eating food grown/raised with pesticides/homones, do what makes sense. Then he says there's no evidence the food (produced by organics) is any different than that produced by chemical fertilizer. Maybe so, but I have a hard time believing the issue has been adequately studied. I know pesticides get under the skin of strawberries and can't be washed off. I'll eat regular strawberries when organic aren't available, but who really knows if 20 years from now my cancer risk wouldn't be lower if I never ate fruit (I eat a lot of it) treated with pesticides. I suppose that eating pesticide-laced food might actually reduce the risk of cancer, but it seems to me much more likely that it's the other way around. I certainly understand why pesticides/hormones etc. make food cheaper. But I can afford to pay a little more and consume less of it, so I think that it makes sense to do so.